If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I set up an account pretty much solely to express my disgust at Graham Smith's disingenuous hatchet job on Watch_Dogs.

I consider myself lucky to be living in a world and age where such vicious, disgusting attacks towards a hyper-hyped 60€ blockbuster game made by a large, faceless corporation won't go unpunished.

Smith will be impaled and then disemboweled on account of your righteous and totally objective analysis.

Please never change: the faceless, large corporations need all the help we can give them and if Keepers of the Absolute Truth won't step in and chastise fallacious opinions, hyper-hyped blockbuster games might as well disappear forever.

I consider myself lucky to be living in a world and age where such vicious, disgusting attacks towards a hyper-hyped 60€ blockbuster game made by a large, faceless corporation won't go unpunished.

Smith will be impaled and then disemboweled on account of your righteous and totally objective analysis.

Please never change: the faceless, large corporations need all the help we can give them and if Keepers of the Absolute Truth won't step in and chastise fallacious opinions, hyper-hyped blockbuster games might as well disappear forever.

Seriously hope you're either joking or 15.

Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish

After playing the game and finishing the main story, Watch_dogs has a lot of flaws and the piece on the site is pretty fair.

How was it fair? Did you struggle with the controls to the degree Smith says he did? Did you continuously screw up missions due to hacking the wrong thing?

I didnt have any problems playing the game (except the -pagefilecheckdisable thing), controls worked as they should, I could play nonlethal where I wanted, and I wasnt forced to make my main character an arsehole.

That doesnt mean everyone has to like the game, and I think Graham just really didnt like the game, maybe due to some hype it received beforehand and so on.

Then again, who knows. But RPS is well known for just speaking their mind and not giving a fuck, so I realise that you only joined up to share your disgust for the review, but, you know, not ever reviewer is every reviewer, and the hivemind welcomes a differing opinion. For example, I bought Banished off of Alecs negative review, and they loved it that people just go ahead and buy it anyway.

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it." - The Conclave

How was it fair? Did you struggle with the controls to the degree Smith says he did? Did you continuously screw up missions due to hacking the wrong thing?

No, I played with a controller so I didn't struggle as much, but there were a few times that because of the controls, yes I did fuck up the mission because the wrong thing was hacked. Driving and hacking was particularly poorly handled as you either watch the bottom of the screen or hold a button to look backwards, only to end up crashing into something ahead of you. The game is not great. It's ok. It's pretty flawed in a lot of places.

"Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""

Then again, who knows. But RPS is well known for just speaking their mind and not giving a fuck, so I realise that you only joined up to share your disgust for the review, but, you know, not ever reviewer is every reviewer, and the hivemind welcomes a differing opinion. For example, I bought Banished off of Alecs negative review, and they loved it that people just go ahead and buy it anyway.

I must've expressed myself poorly if I gave the impression I disliked the review for disliking the game. Not the issue. I disliked the review for giving a false representation of what the game is like to play, and for betraying an obvious delight in tearing into it at the cost of doing so. I've read a lot of fairly negative reviews of this game but only Smith's review felt mean and disingenuous.

Ah you're aware you're expressing yourself poorly. Rejoice, the first step is always the hardest one. Now, this is how your post should read:

Originally Posted by Sodomous

I disliked the review for giving what in my eyes was a false representation of what the game is like for me to play, and for betraying what I imagined was an obvious delight in tearing into it at the cost of doing the former. I've read a lot of fairly negative reviews of this game (please don't judge me) but only Smith's review felt mean and disingenuous to me.

Rejoice, the first step is always the hardest one. Now, this is how your post should read:

Which is fine, actually. You are entitled to your opinion.

Like everybody else.

Great contribution. Because if there's one thing message boards need more of, it's reminders that opinions are subjective and that everyone's entitled to one. Very profound and to the point. You monumental berk.

Now now, gentlemans. You can all follow our one and only rule number one.

Originally Posted by Sodomous

I must've expressed myself poorly if I gave the impression I disliked the review for disliking the game. Not the issue. I disliked the review for giving a false representation of what the game is like to play, and for betraying an obvious delight in tearing into it at the cost of doing so. I've read a lot of fairly negative reviews of this game but only Smith's review felt mean and disingenuous.

Hm. Well, experience is a very subjective matter. Its entirely possible the game just acted like that to him, and I know I wouldnt touch a gamepad for the life of me when playing on a PC. And if you simply dislike all there is about the game, thats an opinion as well, no matter if you disagree with it or not.

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it." - The Conclave

A name, and you. Although I'm beginning to see 'alms is a monumental berk' as more of an hypothesis for which you keep providing evidence. Carry on.

Originally Posted by QuantaCat

Now now, gentlemans. You can all follow our one and only rule number one.

Its entirely possible the game just acted like that to him, and I know I wouldnt touch a gamepad for the life of me when playing on a PC.

Find that a strange attitude, especially for cross-platform titles that are obviously designed for a controller. In any case, you're not (as far as I know) a games critic. But for Graham Smith to have such difficulty with the keyboard/mouse controls and not try the game with a controller is a bit like a film critic going to see a foreign film with no subtitles and complaining it was incomprehensible.

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it." - The Conclave

A name, and you. Although I'm beginning to see 'alms is a monumental berk' as more of an hypothesis for which you keep providing evidence. Carry on.

It has been explained to you in many ways, but since you don't seem to take irony very well or pay very much attention to what's been said, I'll make one more attempt to be perfectly clear:

You are reading things into that review that aren't there, you insist on passing what is simply your opinion as factual, and your evaluations as objective (whereas Mr Smith's "obviously" aren't). It's been explained how and where such evaluations were off the mark, and that regardless, Mr Smith is entitled to the opinion expressed in that review, that him and RPS are unaffected by your complaints about his work or his supposed inability to do what you'd like him to do.

Print this and read it until you can either understand it or at least accept it.

It has been explained to you in many ways, but since you don't seem to take irony very well or pay very much attention to what's been said, I'll make one more attempt to be perfectly clear:

You are reading things into that review that aren't there, you insist on passing what is simply your opinion as factual, and your evaluations as objective (whereas Mr Smith's "obviously" aren't). It's been explained how and where such evaluations were off the mark, and that regardless, Mr Smith is entitled to the opinion expressed in that review, that him and RPS are unaffected by your complaints about his work or his supposed inability to do what you'd like him to do.

Print this and read it until you can either understand it or at least accept it.

You know, you could just as well leave it. You dont equally need to post anything.

Aaaaanyhow, maybe its worth discussing this further in the Watch Dogs thread over in PC Gaming?

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it." - The Conclave

Such as? I made some assumptions about Smith's prejudice against Ubisoft but I never tried to present them as otherwise and they're certainly not the bulk or basis of my criticism of the review.

you insist on passing what is simply your opinion as factual

Forgive me for not qualifying every evaluative sentence with 'in my opinion'. I thought I was among adults who knew the difference without my doing so. I hope your faculty for doubt hasn't been harmed by reading them.

People have offered their own views of the game, some agreeing with me, some with Smith. Note that I've not construed statements in the latter camp as attacks on my right to hold an opinion. Because that would be ridiculous.

and that regardless, Mr Smith is entitled to the opinion expressed in that review, that him and RPS are unaffected by your complaints about his work or his supposed inability to do what you'd like him to do.

Of all the straw men you've erected in the last few posts, I think the one in which I'm angling for some punitive action against Graham Smith might be my favorite. Although the one about defending 'faceless corporations' had a certain demented, quirky charm to it. But enough is enough now; you really must get it through your head that to criticize a review is not the same as saying the author had no right to write it, or that he should be punished for writing it, or that my criticism has some claim to absolute truth. Speak to the actual points I make about the review or don't, but don't keep dragging us both into this absolute guff. Then, who knows, maybe I can revise my hypothesis above.

RPS should pull the Rainbow Six has Male Hostages post or write a clarification. One of the comments in the thread below the article sums it up the article's issues quite well:

Remnant says:

It doesn’t exist in a vacuum, no, but there’s this kind of strange selective vacuum going on here.
Let’s evaluate:
The first Rainbow Six game had female and male operatives, female and male hostages. This trend continued in the series, through Rogue Spear and Raven Shield, Lockdown (even though we prefer to ignore that).
It changed in Vegas, to an extent: Your three-person team was all-male, except for creating a custom character as a female. The intel agent was female, and again the hostages were split between male and female.
So in conclusion, Rainbow Six has been using men and women as hostages (and operatives!) since 199-fucking-8. But again, we are all wasting our time with this stupid shit. There are legitimate areas of concern — Assassin’s Creed, for instance. But five minutes of, gosh, research would show you that this is actually one of these series that deserves praise. Does it get praise? No. One demo featuring a single hostage, and a coin toss to essentially decide gender, and this gets an article.
Does the female sniper get a mention, who saves the male operative during the game? No. Because Grayson probably didn’t see the rest of the video for the blood-red vision he suddenly had at the notion of a female hostage.
Again, it needs to be said: Rainbow Six is actually a series that has said “Your gender does not matter to us.” You can be male and have a gun to your head. You can be a female and save the goddamn day. You can roll in with a full team of men or a full team of women. It’s a series about stopping bad guys.
But instead, this nonsense, as if a 15 year streak of male hostages is going to end based on one 15 minute demo. This is uninformed, perhaps even deliberately. It neglects the awesome female sniper, forgetting to even mention her work, because the goal is to fixate on (incorrect!) negative assumptions rather than praising this series. Rainbow Six should, for all its faults, be held up as an example of where the industry should be going, a direction that Call of Duty and Battlefield have STILL failed to match. This series sees gender as no obstacle.
Again, not a vacuum, right? No. Apparently this 15 minute video is a vacuum, because he’s willing to throw the franchise’s history under the bus to make a point, but in another article he’ll jump on Assassin’s Creed poor history to prove the same point… so… what, AC gets hounded for its history, but R6′s history is wiped clean because they want their alarmist bullshit?